PRESS RELEASE
August 12, 2024
Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Cell Phone 812/243-0825; Phone 812/232-2434; Fax 812/235-3685; [email protected]

Victory for Indiana Right to Life in Challenge Against Limits on Contributions to Super PACs

TERRE HAUTE - On Thursday, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of Indiana Right to Life Victory Fund (“IRTL Victory Fund”) that an Indiana law that limits corporations from contributing to PACs for independent expenditures violates the First Amendment.

IRTL Victory Fund, a PAC that only does independent expenditures because their expenditures are not coordinated with a candidate, and does not give money to the candidates, and Sarkes Tarzian, Inc., a corporation wishing to donate to it, had argued that Indiana's Election Code violates the First Amendment by prohibiting corporations from contributing to PACs for independent expenditures. The court found this argument compelling and barred enforcement of the laws.

Following a lower court's incorrect decision and an appeal by IRTL Victory Fund, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals asked the Indiana Supreme Court to say whether Indiana law limited corporate contributions for independent expenditures by IRTL Victory Fund. The Indiana Supreme Court agreed with IRTL Victory Fund's interpretation of the law, declaring that the Indiana laws do indeed prohibit contributions to PACs for independent expenditures.

That decision made the federal appeals court's job easy—“The Indiana Supreme Court's decision all but resolves this appeal,” said the 7th Circuit. That is because the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly made it clear that the only thing that can justify contribution limits is the threat of “quid-pro-quo corruption,” that is, the exchange of money for political favors, and has repeatedly held that contributions for independent expenditures do not create such a threat. As a result, limits on corporate contributions for independent expenditures—like those at issue here—are unconstitutional.

In so ruling, the court rejected the government's argument that IRTL Victory Fund had no reason to be in court because it had not been punished under the challenged laws. To the contrary, the court of appeals stated that the laws' very existence created a threat of punishment. And while some, but not all, of the officials charged with enforcing the challenged laws had said that they would not enforce the laws in that way, the court agreed with IRTL Victory Fund that these limited and illusory “just trust us” promises, not backed by any official action, provided cold comfort. As IRTL Victory Fund had argued, the court found that such promises are meaningless since they do not control what future officeholders might do—meaning that, absent this favorable court decision, IRTL Victory Fund would have been only one change of office (or of mind) away from having these laws enforced against it.

According to James Bopp, Jr. of The Bopp Law Firm PC, lead counsel for Plaintiff IRTL Victory Fund, “This ruling is an important victory for free speech. Courts dealing with unconstitutional laws like these should reject the attempt by government bureaucrats to justify silencing political candidates, parties, and contributors with nothing but meaningless promises in the face of draconian, anti-First Amendment laws.”

Read the opinion here.